by KPM LAW | Apr 24, 2023 | Uncategorized
Public Schools across the nation are entrusted with our children to educate, feed, nurture and provide the tools necessary for our next generation to lead fulfilling lives. As part of these responsibilities, schools must have robust precautions in place to ensure that students with allergies, and specifically food allergies, have policies and procedures in place to prevent incidents that could have dire consequences. Having a robust and specific Risk Management plan in place to prevent and deal with these situations is of the utmost importance. Facts and Background A Nebraska school district has agreed to pay $1 million to the family of a teen who died of anaphylaxis in May 2022. A 14-year-old student at Liberty Middle School in Papillion, Nebraska, was given a granola bar by his teacher. Unfortunately, the bar contained peanuts and the student had a peanut allergy. Tragically, the student later died in hospital following a severe allergic reaction. During its March meeting, the Papillion La Vista Community school board received notification of settlement with the student’s parents related to the wrongful death claim. The school board’s liability insurance carrier has agreed to pay a lump sum settlement the the family of the deceased student. In exchange for the settlement, the student’s parents have agreed to release the school district from liability in connection with the unfortunate incident. The settlement was reached through a Nebraska probate court process, not a civil lawsuit. As a result, we have relatively little information about the claims and defenses of the respective parties. What little information is known was obtained through social media postings of the family. According to...
by KPMLAW | Feb 20, 2023 | Court, KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Daniel Royce, Esq. Few public risk issues are as poignant, topical, and controversial as liability faced by law enforcement officers for actions undertaken in the line of duty. Our TVs and Social Media feeds are replete with stories of officers accused of bad behavior in the line of duty. Often, these matters result in civil actions where Courts are thrust into the difficult role of deciding cases wrought with emotion in an area of law not always well understood. The Supreme Court of Virginia was recently faced with such a case in the matter of Colas v. Tyree, 2023 Va. Lexis 4*, Record No. 211226 (Sup. Ct. Va., Jan. 26, 2023). As often the case, the facts underlying this matter are tragic. On February 9, 2019, Officer Bradley Colas shot and killed Jeffrey Tyree. The Estate of Tyree brought an action for gross negligence and battery. The Estate alleged that police (and specifically Colas) shot Tyree while he was unarmed and lying on the ground. The trial Court denied Colas’ motion to strike, and the jury found Colas liable and awarded damages to Tyree’s Estate on the battery count only. Colas appealed the matter on the grounds that his Motion to Strike should have been granted because at the time he discharged his weapon, he was acting in defense of another, and thus the fatal shot was justified. In other words, Colas was asserting he had proved his affirmative defense as a matter of law. The Court found that the Estate’s own un-contradicted evidence established that Colas was justified, and applied the adverse party witness rule in...
by KPM LAW | Jun 12, 2022 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Brian A. Cafritz, Esq.Virginia has long had a defense-friendly one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims. Under Virginia Code § 8.01-230, the accrual of right of action occurs when injury is sustained. In the context of a defamation action, the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the injury to reputation is sustained by publication. Va. Code § 8.01-230; see, Weaver v. Beneficial Finance Co., 199 Va. 196, 200-01, 98 S.E.2d 687 (1957).Over the last hundred years, it has been relatively easy to calculate the accrual date for the defamatory acts. If one made a statement or drafted a written letter, the date of publication of the statement or letter became the accrual date. For example, if a photocopy of the same letter was copied and mailed to different recipients on different dates, the law considers each mailing of the same letter to be a new publication that creates a separate cause of action with the statement being heard on different dates in different locations and causing different damages. As a result, based on the date of publication, each mailing of the photocopied letter has its own accrual date for the purposes of the statute of limitations. See Bradford J. Brady v. Stefanie Marshall and M3-Marshall Contracting & Masonry, Inc., (Cir. Ct. Albemarle County, Case No. CL19-1701, J. Higgins, 2021).However, in today’s society, communications through letters is becoming less common. Written letters had been replaced by emails and texts. But today’s technology has changed that as well. The introduction of social media platforms, pod casts, and multimedia communications complicated that calculus...
by KPMLAW | Jul 24, 2021 |
Kalbaugh, Pfund & Messersmith has dedicated more than thirty years of practice to serving the unique needs of national and international insurance carriers and self-insured companies. With dynamic multi-jurisdictional experience and strategically located offices, our practice is readily poised to deliver a uniquely specialized network of legal resources to clients facing legal action, and professional support and education to avoid the costs associated with lengthy legal battles. We effectively save our clients time and money with distinct groups focused on the matters affecting insurers and their insureds most –products and premise liability, consumer auto, professional liability, and more.We’ve invested in our people, our technology, and our relationships to deliver legal care in the most efficient, effective, and innovative manner possible. Over twenty years, we’ve cultivated a legal force and professional network of resources that have successfully defended national and international insurance carriers and self-insured companies, earning commendations from notable industry leaders including AM Best’s, Claims & Litigation Alliance, Martindale-Hubbell, and Lexis Nexis. More importantly, we’ve earned the commendations of our clients who return claim after claim for the experience, efficiency, excellence and value upon which they’ve come to rely. Why Us? ESTABLISHED We were founded in 1990 and have been in continuous operation ever since. INNOVATIVE We were the first insurance defense firm with statewide offices in Virginia. With four strategically located offices, our teams are able to respond and mobilize quickly to provide a local presence in every courthouse in the state. EVOLVING We are one of Virginia’s largest organically grown law firms and we continue to grow. We are big enough to service the litigation needs of...
by KPMLAW | Sep 8, 2020 | Uncategorized
Written by Henry U. Moore, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. It is not an uncommon scenario in general liability cases for multiple plaintiffs to be injured in one accident – this is especially common in motor vehicle cases. Under Virginia law, each injured party has their own separate cause of action for their own physical injuries and emotional distress resulting from those injuries. However, the lines can become blurred between causes of action when a plaintiff makes a claim that they suffered emotional distress damages from witnessing the injuries to another party. For instance, this scenario can arise in a motor vehicle accident where more than one person in the same car is injured, and one plaintiff claims he suffered emotional distress from witnessing the injury or death of his fellow passenger. These are commonly referred to as negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) or “bystander” claims, and they are very hard to establish under Virginia law. Virginia is in the minority of states that do not allow recovery for solely emotional distress experienced by family members or bystanders in close proximity to the injury or death of another – even if that ‘bystander” is himself involved or injured in the accident. Rather, a plaintiff must show that they suffered accompanying physical injury resulting from the emotional disturbance or distress. In Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27 (1973) the Virginia Supreme Court laid out this rule for bystander claims that is still in force in the Commonwealth. There, a driver ran his car off the road, struck a vehicle parked in the plaintiff’s driveway, and crashed into the plaintiff’s house. Although...
